Veritas Rex

AFP unveils Patients United Now Event

I'm working on a very important project for the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.  We all know that our health care system isn't perfect, but many in Congress think that greatere government involvement is the solution to the problem.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

If you live in Indiana, you'll be seeing commercials from AFP's Patient's United Now campaign starting tomorrow.  I think they outline at least one of the best reasons NOT to have the government run our health care. 

 

You can also attend our luncheon event on June 30th to learn more about this issue and enjoy some free food.

Indianapolis, IN
Date: June 30th, 2009
Time: 12pm-1pm
Location: Indiana Statehouse 2nd Floor North Atrium 

The Expendable Child

This article was written by a friend, Phillip Stutts.  I quote it here in its entirety because it's just that good.

Eight years ago, I had a life-changing moment. So great was this moment that it became the foundation of my personal and professional life. I rarely discuss it with others and I am very hesitant to write about it publicly. But I feel that my story may help shed a different light on a terrible situation occurring in Washington, D.C. right now.
 
Since 2001, I have served as a “Big Brother” in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. My two “littles” come from rough backgrounds. They’ve never had a relationship with their biological parents. Their parents chose alcohol, prostitution, drugs and jail over love, nurturing and responsibility. It’s heartbreaking.
 
My youngest, Tre’von, lives in Maryland, and was adopted by his foster mom—a wonderful woman who does her best for Tre’von and two other adopted children, but life is a struggle for this family.
 
Tre and I have a special relationship. I’m the only male in his life and I love him like a son. I’ve preached to him to fight for a better future—one that breaks the vicious cycle of children growing up without parents. We talk about it every week.

An alternative view of President Obama's Notre Dame speech

A few of my VR friends are helping organize a protest against Notre Dame's extension of a commencement speech invitation to President Barack Obama.  I must respectfully disagree with their efforts.

The office of the President can, and should, be treated with respect.  Although the left has demonstrated little or none of this attitude in the last 8 years, that alone is not a reason for us to follow suit.  Barack Obama is the President of the United States and should be welcome at Notre Dame.  If he chooses to use that platform to inappropriately spout his radical views on abortion he shouldn't be invited back.  But I suspect that he won't.

I suggest we would be better served by inviting our own pro-life speaker to campus discussing why Obama's position on abortion is so misguided.

Now, at the same time, I am not Catholic.  There are other matters at work here as it pertains to the Catholic Church.  But last I checked Obama was no Catholic either.  This isn't a situation similar to John Kerry- a practicing Catholic who is rejecting the teachings of his church.  Perhaps Catholics feel that their commencement speakers should reflect the values of the church.  I can understand such a position, but perhaps the President of the United States could be the exception.

Either way, I suggest we drop this thing.  We can be above the left's hatred of Republican President's- and we should. 

Ruth Malhotra's Persecution

When I was at CPAC I had the privilege of meeting Ruth Malhotra.  When I met her, I didn't know her story.  She was pleasant to get to know and, after reading more about her story after seeing her receive an award, she's clearly someone I'd like to get to know more.

From time to time discussion gets pretty heated on this blog.  I don't like it.  However, Ruth Malhotra's experiences make me thankful I didn't end up in her situation.

Check out the 2007 article about her travails in FrontPage Mag.  Here's a bit of the article:

This past February, while other Georgia Tech students were exchanging flirtatious Valentine’s Day notes, Ruth Malhotra received an anonymous letter whose message was anything but amorous:

This Valentine’s Day, you cannot attack gay marriage. It is about love and you are about hate.

This Valentine’s Day, you cannot condemn a woman’s choice. It is about love and you are about hate.

This Valentine’ Day, you cannot protest the Vagina Monologues. It is about love and you are about hate.

No, this Valentine’s Day, you will be Raped. Sex is about love and through it you will experience hate. I cannot wait.

To find a rape threat in her mailbox was almost a relief to Malhotra after months of receiving death threats. (One of the most charitable, from a fellow student, said, "I really want to choke you, bitch.") As with all the other letters, she turned the vicious Valentine over to the campus police, which added it to the "ongoing investigation" that so far has yielded nothing.

Malhotra can’t help believing that a university that claims to be more committed to "civility" than any other school in the country and routinely initiates proceedings against students who commit such offenses as smoking in the dorms would certainly have immediately sprung heroically into action if she had been a black, Hispanic, lesbian, or almost any other woman receiving such messages. But she is a conservative activist and almost by definition a thorn in Georgia Tech’s side. So the school’s administration, beginning with president Wayne Clough and working downward to various assistant deans, has sat on its hands while Malhotra endures what her attorney David French calls "a persecution."

eHarmony succesfully sued for refusing to make gay matches

I had heard about this case, but considered the possibility of such an outcome unlikely.  I guess I was wrong.

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin via GOPUSA.

New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks -- heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide. "Men seeking men" has now been enshrined with "I have a dream" as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

Neil Warren, eHarmony's founder, is a gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A "Focus on the Family" author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages healthy, lasting unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths or no faith at all.

Don't like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Internet that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it.

No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony's right to operate a lawful business that didn't give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great "sin" was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley's legal shakedown artists -- and staved off other opportunists as well. The dating site had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman, and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey attorney general intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model.

The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000 and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey's Civil Rights division "to cover investigation-related administrative costs."

It's awfully sad when a Christian businessman like Mr. Warren is forced (in this case) to support and encourage homosexual relationships.  This company has not just been asked to limit discrimination in hiring, they've been forced to help gay couples meet in cyberspace.

I think individuals on both sides of this issue should be dismayed at this outcome.  Regardless of your position on gay marriage, isn't it unreasonable that a dating site MUST also offer services to homosexuals?  Even setting aside if Mr. Warren had no personal or religious objection, what if he simply wanted to make his services highly targeted towards straight couples, or conservative Christian couples or students who mastered in Underwater Basket Weaving?  

Is that not the prerogative of a private business?  Or do gay couples require this extra protection?

You love us? You hate us? Just thanks for visiting.

I wanted to drop a short note to say thanks for visiting.

We've cracked 2,500 visitors a month for the first time since we've been blogging and we owe it all to you!  So whether you love us or hate us, I thank you for visiting.

Obama's new loneliness

I found this article from the New York Times very interesting.  A short excerpt:

For years, like legions of other professionals, Mr. Obama has been all but addicted to his BlackBerry. The device has rarely been far from his side — on most days, it was fastened to his belt — to provide a singular conduit to the outside world as the bubble around him grew tighter and tighter throughout his campaign.

“How about that?” Mr. Obama replied to a friend’s congratulatory e-mail message on the night of his victory.

But before he arrives at the White House, he will probably be forced to sign off. In addition to concerns about e-mail security, he faces the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence in the official record and ultimately up for public review, and the threat of subpoenas. A decision has not been made on whether he could become the first e-mailing president, but aides said that seemed doubtful.

It's interesting and also quite sad.  Both President Bush and President-elect Obama will have to share the same loneliness that comes from being the most examined life in the world.

No more personal contact via email.  No more records.  Nothing that might look bad later. Personal conversations not recorded are off the record and at least a "he said she said situation."

It's too bad.  It's just ridiculous how much scrutiny our President will have.  Transparency is good, but do we really have to ignore all boundaries?  I'm sure Republicans will take every opportunity to investigate Mr. Obama just like Democrats have done to President Bush (and plan to continue doing now that he is out of office and unable to claim Executive Privilege).

There are perfectly legitimate reasons for heightened transparency, but when do these investigations prove worthwhile and when are they just damaging to our Republic?

Brand America

From www.tothesource.org (with permission):

If you take a stroll around San Francisco's financial district you are surrounded by brands. Every morning, on my way to work, where I write marketing blurbs about beauty brands, I can't help but absorb bytes of brand-speak, which are constant reminders that today's world largely runs on perceptions—Peet's Coffee cups, tantalizing images of Cole Haan shoes, and all kinds of corporate messages saturate today's urban American experience. Given this environment perhaps it should come as no surprise, that the idea of the "American brand" has become commonly accepted parlance.

Even five years ago the Brand America "trademark" was becoming a legitimate entity.  In 2003 a San Francisco Chronicle article by James MacKinnon entitled, "Brand America," observed that: "It used to be a joke, and not a subtle one: America™, the world's greatest democracy reduced to a catchy trade name. Today 'Brand America' is used without embarrassment. Branding is the new federal mega-project."

Why ACORN is an attack on my civil rights

I have the right to vote.  I have the right to vote without intimidation, molestation, and without arbitrary qualifications like poll taxes.

But the time has come for us to focus on an equally important right:  the right to not have my vote canceled out by a fraudulent vote.

And yes, ACORN's activities are making it easier for individuals to cast fraudulent votes.  That's why I am glad that the Buckeye Institute has filed a state RICO action against them.

Draw your own conclusions

I saw this video created by The Courage Campaign, who are opponents of California's gay marriage ban.  You can draw your own conclusions.